The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-24
LETTERS-PATENT.

Each Application Can Cover but One Sep
arate and Distinct Invention.
WASHINGTON, Oct. 23-The Commissioner
of Patents has rendered important decision
settling in the negative tho long disputed ques-
ton, can applicant embrace in one and the
same application for letters patent than
one distinct and separate inventonl The case in
point was that OF Austin Herr. who applied for
a single patent covering both the machine and
process for separating garlic from wheat. The
following Is brief synopsis of the Commission
er's decision:
"The use of machine for the purpose for
which it was constructed is the thing enjoyed
under letters patent but the machine itself is
the thing patented. method or process, such
as the law recognizes as patent table, must have
an existence Independents of the machine
apparatus by which it is carried out If the
sult is simply the act OF the mechanism itself,
so related to it that it cannot exist Independents
ly of it, and is the sole utterance OF the machine,
process or method does not exist it is simply
the function of the machine. "A process to be
patentable, must be wholly independent of the
apparatus; the process is that which brings into
existence the product or result 1t must be re-
garded az settled by the highest authority that
an apparatus and process are separat and dis
tinct inventions. Whenever the original inven-
tion is such that. with it's mutually cooperating
parts, 1t retains distinctive character and iden-
tity, and the improved parts have not become
distinct subjects of invention, art, or manufact-
ure, such original and cooperating parts may be
i
has not subdivided such parts elements into
distinct and well-recognizei subjects of invcn-
tion and manufacture, and they have not been
identified in the arts and industries represent
ing distinct subjects. the improvements
can all be included In one patent The fact that
the courts have held valid patents covering a
multiplicity of inventions forms reason why
the Patent Office should continue to issue
patents comprehendiug distinct and separate in
ventlons. While there is statutory declara-
ton, Congress has recognized distinctly and
clearly thu natural cassi sifcation of the arts
existing In four great divisions, and that q
single and distinct invention. clearly belonging
in one class. ought not to be joined in the same
patent with an invention belonging in another.
The statute vests the Com mmissioner with large
discretion in establishing a proper classification
of inventions, which discretion has been recog
nized and settled in numerous decisions
of the courts. While patent may be
null and void for the reason that it en-
braces two inventions, this fact furnishes
no excuse why the principles which underiie
the patent system should be disregarded the
discretion of the Commissioner should not be
exercised In accordance with those principles
carefully examined to determine it's novelty and
usefulness; the examination must go back as
far as knowledge of the art extends. 1t would
be impossible conduct with certainty and
promptness the vast business committed to the
Office in a systematic manner, examine the in
ventions of sixty millions Of people. survey the
wide and extended field OF art. and determine
their novelty and usefulness. speedily and salts
factorily, without the definite and settled rules
governing the natural and proper classification
of pate ntable subjects"